The first Quake had a pretty sick soundtrack... not sure about Doom though. Both games are available on GoG.

Well, Doom on the PS1 seems to be with good soundtrack: https:/.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqfATimP4C8

Since people are talking Quantum Break - loved the game. Would love to see a version for GOG here with the TV-style Episodes included as offline files to play.

Steam-version has everything done via streaming online for the TV-style Episodes. Really wished those files were localized.

Don't care about file-size and all of that; I just want the game offline and DRM-FREE in full, both the actual game and the actual TV-Episodes.

maybe it was the track for that secret level, the nightclub or something, the memory might be corrupted

Upon entering the PS1 disc? Usually the intro comes first...

Or the Quake 2 soundtrack: https:/../www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii7RqFQX6cA&list=PLlx24pYKURBRrW2P_-AOSDwYEh3hEXe3J&index=13

But without any really precise hint hard to find out, there was just way to many PS1 shooters: It even sucks playing it on a console, yet Sonys consoles was always with high support... they kinda have the same industrys trust such as the MS OS.

The first game music i experienced was a bit different. As far as i remember (almost 30 years, really hard to remember) Lunar 2 was my first imported RPG and it got a full soundtrack included... so it brings some memories hearing it.

https:/../www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYlFQ5WvcJk

I had a PC since the Voodoo-era (around 1995) but untíl around the year 2005 i was mainly playing on consoles, i had a very huge collection. I think my weakest time on console was the PS3 and PS4 era... those consoles was inferior to me... but PS5 once again was a console nice to have and as a secondary device i use it a lot.

And as a hidden thing: I was one of the biggest Sega-Lovers... i had 5 Dreamcast consoles, even the black R7 model. Nowadays i do not use it anymore but i will never give it away, just to much memories attached. Guess i will always remember the first time i was playing Skies of Arcadia on my Dreamcast... simply memories more valuable than near countless games.

If I remember correctly, the OST for Quake was done by Nine Inch Nails.
The original Dooms 1+2 have a neat rock soundtrack, but only when General Midi is used with a good midi device and a wavetable with geood E-guitars. With Adlib or even the standard Windows Midi device it just doesn't sound right.

The instruments in this clip are ok, but it sounds as if the device can only do mono.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSsfjHCFosw

This is the Adlib version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgQIqxyjwYA
Not bad, but GM just sounds better.

GM sounds way more dynamic, this is not even a fair comparison.

On PC, one of my first games was Dark Reign 2. I got it as a GoG version now. The music is kinda special... if you hear it, you know instantly "its this game", so it is authentic.

https:/.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU483Tb7C68
It can even be played on LAN... and you was able to host a game using your own PC... features we nowadays are lacking.

I think that Payday 2 at one point exceeded 100 GB in filesize, but the developers have since cut down down quite a bit to somewhere <100 (the Steam page states 83 GB free space needed).

I know The Elder Scrolls Online exceeds 100 GB. Though I suppose that's fair enough considering how much content the game has to offer :P.

Kind of unfortunate since I feel that games had a pretty good balance between fidelity and filesize around 8-10 years ago. I know that space isn't too expensive these days, but I'm not sure that the graphical improvements we've seen over the last console generation have been worth the increase in filesize that many titles now exhibit. Maybe it's an audio file thing?

I hope that I'm not misremembering, but I recall RAGE being considered quite large at ~25 GB when it released in 2011. To put that into perspective, Skyrim came out a little more than a month later and was about half the size or less.

Speaking of Skyrim, it looks like Starfield will soon join the >100 GB games club - but to me at least - so far it's looking to be a game that's worth sacrificing the disk space for!

I remember trying a number of free MMOs some years back in 2015, a lot of them were 30Gb+, one even 100Gb. Takes forever to download...

Doubt it. Higher quality audio may take up extra space, but voice audio is easier to compress, higher quality looks like a handful more of kbit/s. If we look at Oblivion or Skyrim, those being about 10Gb games you're looking at a ton of audio and talking. (I'd say morrowind too, but that was mostly text)

A while back reading up on how Morrowind was developed, the devs opted for fewer models, and then you mix match and overlap to make new ones effectively, huge world with only 80Mb ESM file and like a 300Mb BSA archive.

Most likely it's the 4k textures and 4k models and 4k video files that adds up to a done of space.

Recently i cracked open the Dark Alliance files, and found the textures they used in the game are like 300x360, literally tiny, and that's the texture for like chain mail armor, takes like 1k of memory. I don't recall it looking terrible for as small it was.

The push for graphical realism is just far too big and costly.

I've heard talk of it being attributed to language packs in some games, but I can't give any specific examples off the top of my head. It's been a while since I looked into this sort of thing.

But yes, you're probably right about it mainly being due to all the high res stuff that's packed into games these days. And with some folks now in the early stages of pushing for 8k, I imagine it's only going to get worse as time goes on.

I like the level of detail that can be achieved in games now, but it's not like what we had back in 2012-2014 was bad quality from a technical standpoint. Battlefield 4 still looks quite good to me even now, and Dishonored with it's strong art direction still holds up visually very well nearly 11 years later. Sometimes it feels like the push for more fidelity is taking away resources from the things that matter most in games, including art direction. It's like, why even worry about giving your title a timeless look and feel when pushing for a hyper-realistic look with advanced, hard-to-run lighting techniques and high resolution textures will garner a ton of attention in the here and now? Diminishing returns have been setting in pretty hard for a while now, so I certainly agree with you about this all being far too costly for anyone's good.

Well, internet speeds are getting pretty fast. For some folks it only takes mere minutes - not hours - to download a 100GB game. But with data caps being a thing, some having limited choices when it comes to ISPs and everyone around the world obviously not having reliable or any access to what now counts as "high-speed" internet, there may soon enough need to be some consideration of the part of those making and distributing these games once filesizes become that large.

Now, native 8k isn't common right now, but within the next couple GPU generations upscaled or maybe even native 8k may become a commonly seen thing at the higher end. Think about how out of reach native 4k 60fps seemed to be for new (at the time) games just a few years ago. Even when the 20xx and 5x series from Nvidia and AMD respectively were new if you wanted to run a new title at 4k/60 with all the bells and whistles enables you were likely going to be out of luck; Now with the 40 and 7x series we have "attainable" setups that can easily enough push 4k/120 in many modern games (quotes around attainable due to the wacky pricing on GPUs over the past few years :P).

There is still a PS5 and 100 GB BD discs. Without such an option i guess the industry would not nearly hit 100 GB on quite a few games already. Consoles still make sense, they are not "out of date". Because for those unable to afford a high end system or with bad internet... it is a good option.

Yet i still do agree that some devs are becoming lazy because of the new possibilities, so there might be the lack of optimizations and some games tend to become unnecessary data hogs. However, it is totally possible that some highly optimized games still require around 100 GB, dependable on the quality used. In the past it has not been used because simply to huge to tackle, not because it would have been useless.

I still think, making great optimization, a awesome quality can be done using no more than 100 GB, so if it goes way beyond that limit, most likely there is lot of laziness involved.

Not so fun with modding, because as soon as you mod a certain "global model" it will be added to near endless NPCs and whatelse. Those "refreshed models" was used in order to save up on space, not because it is the most supreme thing ever made.

With more space you can create way more unique stuff and no need to recycle models, textures and whatelse all the time... so it makes sense having more space.

Even Skyrim was pretty much "nailed" on the available space because it was released on the Xbox360 with a DVD and a HDD, so they was trying to cut down data size purely because of technical limitations, not because there was no need for any more space. The newest Skyrim version, upgraded to 64 bit is way bigger in size than the original release-version; and yes, it looks way better.

There was 2 versions of Final Fantasy 13: One for the PS3 and one for the Xbox360. On the PS3 they had a BD with 50 GB space and on the Xbox360 they only had around 9 GB space, multiplied by 3 discs. On the Xbox360 they was using different sequences and even a lower resolution and the game was clearly inferior. Now i dunno how many "worse optimization" was involved but it surely was more challenging to them and even the lower data size was decreasing the possible quality.

Sure, you can say "Those lazy devs simply should put in even more work for even better optimization", yet, the costs can be immense and it is not always economically possible at a certain point... unless you have some super franchise which can generate coins out of the broken window.

Indeed... Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk got around 50-60 installed GB and top notch graphics. However, they was working on its optimization for years and it was very expensive. They was able to afford it because it was a cash-cow; if the success would have been any worse... it would have been impossible, simply to pricy to execute such a optimization for years.

Sure, on the Switch Witcher 3 is about half the size, but is it the same game? You may judge...

https:/.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVmaupufOrQ

I'm not even entirely sure this music was 'official' by any means. Remember, this was in response to rtcvb32's remark about how the 'extra room' on a cd was just filled with anything just to fill it next to the game.

Also, i don't think that the PS1 had WAV file compatibility?

2013 - 2015 you mean. Lets see, also from memory that would be ME 3, Skyrim and Total War ... Total War Rome II, possible Civ V. Wait let me check what gog has to say on this.

Ah yea .... Devil May Cry, Crysis 3, Battlefield , Tomb Raider, Ryse Son of Rome...Dragon Age - I, Wolvenstein old blood, Death or Alive ... I see your point. Those games look still more than okay..... It is a shame that development did not continu on this track for at least part of the scene. Those games run amazing and are still lookers too on modern day systems.

Still, with i believe Forspoken being one of the most technical advanced titles i have, there is a huge difference.. and you pay for it. In your currency, in terms of system weight and storage

Unlikely. Internet speeds are much faster than they used to be and storage is much, much cheaper.

Back in 2000 it would take all day to download 100mb of files and we were generally using HDDs around the 8GB-12GB mark. Back then there were people complaining that some games came on more than 3 CDs (2001's Emperor Battle for Dune came on a whopping 4 CDs).

I don't buy the cost of hardware argument either. I know graphics cards are still overly expensive, but comparing the cost of buying a decent PC now to buying one in the 90s/2000s, it's pretty cheap. A good gaming PC in 1996 cost upwards of £1,200 - £1,500. Given that inflation broadly doubles prices every 25 years, that would be £2,400 - £3,000 today.

Anyway, not sure that this topic has really progressed since I last read it, but LTT's TechQuickie did quite a good video on game sizes last month:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKw0A9ilHgA